List, Jon:
> On Nov 2, 2024, at 11:22 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Jerry, List: > > As has generally been the case with your other recent posts, I frankly do not > see the relevance of this one to what the rest of us have been discussing. It > does not appear to have anything at all to do with the thread topic. Jon, it may surprise you, but a "thread topic” does not imply any sort of limit to the meanings your readers may place on your text. > > It is not a "conjecture" that Peirce rejected fictionalism, conceptualism, > and Platonism regarding the ontological status of abstract objects (including > propositions) in favor of scholastic realism. May I assume that these assertions are insufficient to even form a conjecture? > It is also not a "conjecture" that he classified propositions as dicent > symbols and therefore legisigns/types, which do not (metaphysically) exist > except when and where they are embodied in sinsigns/tokens as > replicas/instances. Frankly, this sentence is simply a silly word salad. The nine relative terms are intimately interconnected in the logic of natural philosophy. CSP is always writing as a mathematician, a logician and a natural scientist with broad contributions in both physics and chemistry. As I noted, these terms are part and parcel of chemical demonstrations and evolved to connect the Aristotelian and Newtonian notions of “analysis and synthesis” of logical categories. I would suggest that the language of chemical demonstrations that center around the indices of relatives is one of the natural philosophical pillars of pragmatic thinking. (Given the limits of the envisioning capabilities of most readers here, I would presuppose that this paragraph is beyond the horizons of meaningful expressions! :-)] Jon, as well as other readers, I would suggest that one should search for these nine terms in the writings of early modern philosophers (as I have done.). In other words, find some evidence. The most relevant source that I have identified are the Aristotelian categories (substance, quality, quantity (indices!) and relatives. Notably, these nine terms ignore Kantian referral to “space-time” objects. More notably, is the relevance to the lengthy writings of Suarez on “The Real Relation" as well as the John Deely’s translation of Poinsot and his post-modern texts that are widely cited in today's semiotics community. > I am not in any way seeking to downplay Peirce's originality as a thinker. This assertion is well,…. It appears to be an unintended consequence of your style of work. > After all, he went well beyond the term logic of Aristotelian syllogisms by > inventing modern first-order predicate logic independently of Frege. As I noted before, the chemical, molecular biological, biological and bio-medical sciences are all grounded on material demonstrations where the subjects of sentences are individual terms with definite descriptions. How could natural philosophy be otherwise? > In fact, it is Peirce's notation for the latter (not Frege's), employing the > existential and universal quantifiers, that evolved (via Russell) into what > we use today. >From the perspective of the natural sciences, this is another silly assertion. > The indices of the chemical sciences are all quantifiers, all relatives of >the atomic table of elements, all relatives of the atomic numbers. The very >existence of the Table of Elements as the source of all molecular objects is a >compelling argument against the artificial notion of “universal” forms of real >objects. Is this not the reason that Bertrand Russell introduced the notion >of “Indefinite descriptions” and its subsequent grounding role in analytical >philosophy? Jon, you may wish to explore the role of the copula in sentences with definite and / or indefinite descriptions which refer to transformations of matter. I found such an inquiry to be very fruitful for separating the precision of molecular biological / genetic relatives from the vague notions of physical properties. (CSP had noted this, for example, w.r.t the handedness of the tartaric acid crystals described by Pasteur.) One of my colleagues, a Ph D physicist who works in applied areas, likes to say, “Physics is the art of approximates.” The biochemical processes of biological reproduction demand incredible precision. It appears to me that the engineering and philosophical communities should prepare for discarding many classical ideas, just as CSP did when he proposed the trichotomies. Cheers Jerry > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 11:35 PM Jerry LR Chandler > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> List, Jon, Gary, Helmut: >>> On Nov 1, 2024, at 5:10 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Of course, Peirce rejected all three of these in favor of scholastic >>> realism--propositions do not (metaphysically) exist, but they are real as >>> representations of purported facts prescinded from reality as a whole. >> >> From the perspective of the histories of the sciences and the goals of >> meaningful communication, I find this conjecture to nothing less than absurd. >> >> CSP developed his notions of logic from chemical demonstrations and gives >> many many examples of this throughout his texts. (Personal and scientific >> integrity require every CSP scholar to acknowledge the scientific role of >> these concepts in evaluating CSP texts.) These demonstrations of material >> facts are remote from the assertions that CSP's originality is merely a >> minor extension of "scholastic realism” >> >> I would suggest that the first four Aristotelian categories (substance, >> quality, quantity, and relatives) are the principle basis of the >> developments of the structuralism presented in: >> >> Quality-signs, sin-signs, legi-signs, >> Images(icons), indicies, symbols >> Rhema, decisions, arguments >> >> such that chemical demonstrations are grounded on the chemical indices as >> constituents of chemical symbols and the “legi-signs" (identities) of the >> sin-signs. >> >> I would further suggest that for CSP, the role of the indices is placed in >> the center of the eight other terms because it is a direct logical >> quantitative connective to the qualities and term assignments of all >> chemical demonstrations. The corresponding grammar of the chemical >> connectives (essential to semiosis) are expressions of the meanings of >> connectivity of the semiotic with the semes (cognitive signs), the semiology >> (legisigns) with the semantics. >> >> My reasoning for this logical perspectives is that it is consistent with >> chemical practice, then and now. >> The modern chemical practice is grounded in the TERM logic of Aristotelian >> syllogisms, (chemical elements as names of objects) not the sentential logic >> of modern first predicate logic grounded in various connectives that are >> totally unrelated to CSP expressions of chemical connectives as the source >> of lattice points. >> >> In modern terminology, the Quali-signs (semiotic terms) determine the >> indices of the sin-sign (identity of the object) which in turn determine >> the argument that generates the legi-sign (the name of the chemical object). >> In set theoretic terms, the set of indices (determined / demonstrated from) >> the quali-sign are arranged to assign the organization of the legisign. >> This line of reasoning follows the structuralism of modern mathematics in >> the sense of [ “sets” —> "permutation groups” —> “categories”] for any >> chemical object, including higher order perplex structures. >> >> Cheers >> Jerry > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in > the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
